3bob Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) much of the karma going around is related to someone's honor being slighted for which they seek to get even or ahead on... what are your thoughts on where honor ends and karma begins? I think it can very, very quickly turn into a slippery slope when one battles with violence to establish, extract, or force honor. Btw, I still have trouble with some of the teachings in Bhagavad Gita along these lines being that the warriors on both sides of the epic could have chosen to change their stance for sake the first law of non-violence. In other words I think it is 99.99% impossible to fight violently without karma of some degree. (thus around and around we go) Edited February 24, 2014 by 3bob Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeff Posted February 20, 2014 Does not the concept of honor itself imply that karma has already begun. Best wishes. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3bob Posted February 20, 2014 Jeff, Maybe yes, maybe no; or in some cases yes and in some cases no. Further, I have no problem with self-defense to fullest measure needed, but lets face it that to can very quickly become a slippery slope for human beings. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) 凡事隨緣All events will be taken place when the time comes. Edited February 20, 2014 by ChiDragon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thelerner Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) I think it can very, very quickly turn into a slippery slope when one battles with violence to establish, extract, or force honor. Btw, I still have trouble with some of the teachings in Bhagavad Gita along these lines being that the warriors on both sides of the epic could have chosen to change their stance for sake the first law of non-violence. In other words I think it is 99.99% impossible to fight violently without karma of some degree. I have a lot of problems with the Bhagavad Gita for those reasons too. I can't help but wish the hero had said no to fighting his Uncle, had forbidden hunting/sacrificng the lions or tiger etc., Edited February 20, 2014 by thelerner 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeff Posted February 20, 2014 Jeff, Maybe yes, maybe no; or in some cases yes and in some cases no. Further, I have no problem with self-defense to fullest measure needed, but lets face it that to can very quickly become a slippery slope for human beings. To me, honor implies an attachment to some type of concept. With such an attachment that needs to be "defended" then there is always karma. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3bob Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) To me, honor implies an attachment to some type of concept. With such an attachment that needs to be "defended" then there is always karma. it could be a concept then again it could be a spiritual way or law, and the guardians or gatekeepers of spiritual ways or laws do not suffer any foolish acts towards same kindly... Edited February 20, 2014 by 3bob Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeff Posted February 20, 2014 it could be a concept then again it could be a spiritual way or law, and the guardians or gatekeepers of a spiritual way or laws do not suffer any foolish acts towards same kindly... Thanks. Could you give me an example? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3bob Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) how about at a sampling of say 10,000 various temples (and or well recognized and respected holy sites)somewhere in India? (this area is more of a tangent to my original post but what the heck) Edited February 20, 2014 by 3bob Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeff Posted February 20, 2014 how about at a sampling of say 10,000 various temples (and or well recognized and respected holy sites)somewhere in India? (this area is more of a tangent to my original post but what the heck) Sorry, I did not mean to distract from your original intent. I just found the topic interesting. Feel free to redirect the topic. I don't quite understand your example. How does fighting for honor (with no karma) relate to "sampling of say 10,000 various temples"? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3bob Posted February 21, 2014 (edited) Sorry, I did not mean to distract from your original intent. I just found the topic interesting. Feel free to redirect the topic. I don't quite understand your example. How does fighting for honor (with no karma) relate to "sampling of say 10,000 various temples"? it relates in several ways with one being that certain people or Beings are responsible for the protection of such sites and that may mean violent battles, seen or unseen. Edited February 21, 2014 by 3bob Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeff Posted February 21, 2014 it relates in several ways with one being that certain people or Beings are responsible for the protection of such sites and that may mean violent battles, seen or unseen. Intent drives karma. Some such beings are automated responses, would not the karma reside with the person or being who put the automated process in place? If the protector has their own will & intent, with actions based on a percieved sense of "honor", would not there always be karma? I guess my question would be is there such a person or being that is "beyond karma" that is still driven by a sense of "honor". Is not "honor" a percieved attachment/desire? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3bob Posted February 21, 2014 Intent drives karma. Some such beings are automated responses, would not the karma reside with the person or being who put the automated process in place? If the protector has their own will & intent, with actions based on a percieved sense of "honor", would not there always be karma? I guess my question would be is there such a person or being that is "beyond karma" that is still driven by a sense of "honor". Is not "honor" a percieved attachment/desire? if one did a little creative extrapolating with some of that reasoning could not karma be traced back to "God"? (or whatever term one prefers) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeff Posted February 21, 2014 if one did a little creative extrapolating with some of that reasoning could not karma be traced back to "God"? (or whatever term one prefers) I guess it depends on your definition of "God" and whether you believe in the concept of free will (to act). From my perspective, all "self-aware" beings have various levels of clarity and free will. Karma is created by the "attachments" to the acts at both a conscious and subconscious level. As one sees/realizes past such attachments, karma is no longer relevant (but such a being does not defend their honor). My definition of "God" is more like "emptiness". And while everything is and happens in the field of "God", there is no point in trying to blame God for "stuff". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3bob Posted February 21, 2014 Buddhist doctrine points out the historic Buddha defending his teachings, thus I'd take that as a form of honor to him. It sounds to me like you are mostly limiting honor problems to ego type attachments and I can see that... btw seeing and realizing such problems may put a crack in karmas but I don't see such as being all that is needed to equalize it. I never use the term emptiness since ime it is more highly abused and misunderstood than the terms illusion and even God. I believe there is a Buddhist saying about "no blame", I like that one. As for free will I see that as really being relative will - since no will is free to or able to break Tao, the unbreakable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeff Posted February 21, 2014 Maybe part of our difference is in the connotations of the word "honor". To me, Buddha would defend his teachings for the purpose of clarity and truth, not because he cared if someone thought less of him or tried to belittle him in a debate. On trying to use words like "God" and "Emptiness"... I definitely agree. Both lead to great confusion. Finally, I agree that no one can break the Tao as everything is (or is contained in) the Tao. But, that does not mean that the Tao is not also full of infinite possibilities. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3bob Posted February 21, 2014 Maybe part of our difference is in the connotations of the word "honor". To me, Buddha would defend his teachings for the purpose of clarity and truth, not because he cared if someone thought less of him or tried to belittle him in a debate. On trying to use words like "God" and "Emptiness"... I definitely agree. Both lead to great confusion. Finally, I agree that no one can break the Tao as everything is (or is contained in) the Tao. But, that does not mean that the Tao is not also full of infinite possibilities. The tone of your first paragraph is nice but lets face it there have been far more battles fought than just for the purposes of truth and clarity! Terms: Ok, we agree about potential problems with same. Last paragraph: I'd put that a lot differently being that the Tao only has one possibility and that is to be the Tao, whereas all of the infinite variables and or possibilities are "born" of the Tao starting with and contained in "The One". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeff Posted February 21, 2014 The tone of your first paragraph is nice but lets face it there have been far more battles fought than just for the purposes of truth and clarity! Terms: Ok, we agree about potential problems with same. Last paragraph: I'd put that a lot differently being that the Tao only has one possibility and that is to be the Tao, whereas all of the infinite variables and or possibilities are "born" of the Tao starting with and contained in "The One". On battles... I would agree, but then they are subject to karma (my original point). On Terms... Nice. On Last paragraph... Agreed. You have described in more eloquently and with greater detail. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3bob Posted February 21, 2014 (edited) One might ask if or when dharmic battles are subject to karma? (with the often slippery slope of one believing or being told they are doing their dharmic duty and taking care of related honors in such battles and thus they will be free of incurring karmas) One might also ask if the wrathful deities defending dharma are free of karmas, and if so then why or how could they make use of violence as their method for doing so? Edited February 21, 2014 by 3bob 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeff Posted February 21, 2014 Interesting question... Never really thought about karma relative to wrathful deities. What are your thoughts? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3bob Posted February 22, 2014 my thoughts, tread there lightly and carefully. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeff Posted February 22, 2014 my thoughts, tread there lightly and carefully. Care to explain why? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Mar-Vell Posted February 22, 2014 (edited) ... I read somewhere that "wrathful dharma protectors" typically present in compassionate aspect. ie only rarely do they get a little wrathful. ... Edited February 22, 2014 by Captain Mar-Vell Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3bob Posted February 22, 2014 Care to explain why? as I said before, they do not treat fools kindly. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thelerner Posted February 22, 2014 Honor is a tricky thing. Much egoism is disguised as honor. As I've gotten older I'm more suspicious of actions done for one's honor. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
